Ingersoll-Rand Co.

INGERSOLL-RAND CO. Ingersoll-Rand Company and International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Dis- trict Lodge 53, AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-10160 June 24, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO AND WALTER On February 24, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions containing a supporting argument. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu- sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Ingersoll-Rand Company, Campbellsville, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the recommended Order. t The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Campbellsville, Kentucky, on October 19 to 20, 1976.' The charge was filed by the Union on March 17 and the complaint was issued on July 30. The primary issues are whether the Company, the Respondent, (a) unlawfully interrogated and threatened employees during the Union's organizing drive, and (b) discriminatorily discharged one of the Union's organizers, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs and letters filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I make the following: FINDiNos OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Company, a New Jersey corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of air compressors at its plant in Campbellsville, Kentucky, where it annually ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State. The Company admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Threats and Interrogation The Union began its organizational drive at the plant in January, filed a petition for an election in a production and maintenance unit on February 6, and withdrew the petition on February 23 for lack of a sufficient showing of interest, after the Company included laid-off employees in its list of employees. Thereafter, Union Organizer Bernard Mings and other employee organizers continued the organizing drive among the employees, including those on laid-off status. Some of the alleged threats and interrogation involved employee Mings, who was discharged on March 3. (All of the evidence of this alleged coercion remained undenied.) On February 10 or 11, Foreman Tom Darcangelo went to Mings' work area and started talking about what would happen if the Union came in. Darcangelo stated that "we'd have to bargain [from] minimum wage, bargain from scratch, we'd lose our insurance, we'd lose our salary program." In response, Mings indicated his support of the Union by arguing back. Mings told Darcangelo "the law doesn't say that," and showed him a posted copy of the "Wright Patman letter." (This letter, written on July 22, 1964, by the then chairman of the board to Congressman Patman, stated that "an employer cannot reduce wages or take away any insurance or other benefits ... because the union has established its majority status ... Neither can he threaten to do so if the union wins an election.") Darcangelo responded, "That letter is wrong. Look at the date on it. It's dated July 1964." The next day, Darcangelo returned with General Foreman Harvey Miller, who asked Mings, "What are those union boys trying to do? Take my benefits away from me?" Not getting any response, Miller asked, "Where is the union meeting going to be held?"- further prying into Mings' knowledge of, or participation in, the union activity. (The Union's strategy meetings were moved from one meeting place to another because of the belief that union organizers were being followed.) Mings answered, "I don't know. I haven't been invited." After I All dates are in 1976 unless otherwise stated. 230 NLRB No. 66 455 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Miller left, Darcangelo "hung around to tell me what good benefits we had here, insurance, and wages," stating that they "had the best benefits in this geographical area." Mings again disagreed, telling his foreman, "I didn't think we did." Finally on March 2 (the day before Mings' discharge, as discussed later), Miller made a remark about wanting to discharge employees in the shipping department (where most of the union organizers worked). Miller stated, "I'd fire all those guys back there in shipping if it wasn't for the National Labor Relations Board protecting them." As alleged in the complaint, I find that Foreman Darcangelo unlawfully threatened employee Mings on February 10 or 11 with a loss of existing benefits if the Union's organizing activities were successful, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. I also find, as further alleged, that General Foreman Miller's statement on March 2 that he would discharge union supporters (in the absence of NLRB protection) was coercive and constituted an unlawful threat, and that Miller's questioning of Mings on February 11 or 12 about his and other employees' union activities- particularly in the context of the threats-constituted coercive interrogation, in violation of Section 8(aX1) of the Act. Robert Coomer was another foreman who engaged in such unlawful conduct. (As discussed later, Coomer joined Foreman Darcangelo on March 2 in insisting that employee Mings not be given merely a 1- or 2-day suspension for assaulting the leading antiunion employee, Thomas Barr.) The evidence is undisputed that, early in February, Foreman Coomer told employee Wayne Coom- er "that I would be losing the benefits that I had if I voted in a union; that we would lose all of our insurance. All they could guarantee us was minimum wage, and that we'd have to start all over again." As alleged in the complaint, I find that Foreman Coomer thereby threatened the employee with a loss of existing benefits, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In view of these findings of unlawful threats and coercive interrogation, I find it unnecessary to rule on other allegations of unlawful threats and interrogation by these and other supervisors. B. Discriminatory Discharge 1. Special status of Thomas Barr The evidence shows that antiunion employee Thomas Barr, who provoked the March 2 assault by Union Organizer Mings and who was neither suspended nor discharged for doing so, had a special status in the plant during the Union's organizing drive. He was permitted to leave his work for considerable periods of time each day, when he carried on a campaign against the Union and the employee organizers. Barr's absences from his work area became so frequent that several of the employees kept a record of his absences on 3 separate days in February. The written record, in evidence, shows that, in addition to breaktime, he was absent from his work area from 65 to 75 minutes each of the days. (None of the known union supporters was permitted to leave his work area in this manner.) Much of Barr's time was spent talking to Foremen Coomer and Roots, both of whom campaigned against the Union. (I discredit the testimony by these two supervisors that Barr had previously talked to them as frequently and as long at a time.) Initially, on direct examination, Coomer testified that he could not recall any time when Barr had conversations with him involving the union organizing campaign, and claimed that, in these conversations, Barr "might be talking about hunting, fishing, work. Just whatever comes on his mind." Later Foreman Coomer testified that what was learned about the identity of the in- house union organizers came "Just from what he could get through the grapevine," and that yes, Barr was one of the employees who was part of the "grapevine." Coomer finally testified that, on probably two or three occasions, he talked with Barr about the Union, but denied remembering such a discussion in any of their conversations outside Barr's work area or in Coomer's office. Foreman Roots, in turn, testified that he and Barr talked about hunting, family matters, and work, and positively denied that he ever had any conversations with Barr during the January-March period regarding the union organizing campaign. On the other hand, employee James Pelly, a credible witness, testified that he overheard Barr talking to Foreman Coomer and to Roots "frequently" about the Union. (Both Foreman Coomer and Roots impressed me as being less than candid witnesses on the stand.) Much of employee Barr's remaining time away from his work was spent talking to other employees at work. In early February, Barr began approaching Union Organizer Wayne Coomer, "calling me mangy head or mangy headed union boy or mangy headed cock sucker or just any kind of dirty filthy language he could think of to get me angry ... then right after harassing me, he would either talk to [Foreman] Coomer or [Foreman] Roots" and "on several occasions, Lawrence Roots would kind of grin or laugh." On one occasion after first Barr, and then two others, asked employee Coomer at work about having a union meeting at his home, employee Wayne Coomer complained to Foreman Coomer about beingjumped on and talked about all the time. Foreman Coomer "told me that several people didn't like what I was trying to do" and "maybe you ought to change your politics, and speak out against the Union." (Wayne Coomer's testimony is undenied.) Foreman Coom- er was already aware of the untrue rumor, which employee Barr was spreading, about a union meeting at employee Coomer's home. Foreman Coomer admitted to Wayne Coomer that he had heard it. When asked on cross- examination if he told Foreman Coomer the names of those who were harassing him, Wayne Coomer credibly answered, "I didn't have to. He could see it." Employee Barr acted as if he were a spokesman for management. He asked employee Donnie Buchanan, who was at work about 150 or 200 feet from Barr's work area, "if I was for or against the Union" (as Buchanan credibly testified). Barr then "asked me if [employee] Roger Beningfield was for or against the Union." Barr told Union Organizer Pelly that "we probably would lose" the insurance benefits and "if I didn't believe him, that I could go to [Foreman] Coomer's office, and he could write it up on paper to show me exactly what we would lose." 456 INGERSOLL-RAND CO. (Foreman Coomer finally admitted on the stand that "maybe" Barr would ask him "would we keep our benefits if the Union came in.") Barr told Union Organizer Mings "we got these insurance benefits ... and we'll lose it if we get this union in. I got it straight from [Foreman] Roots." After the Union withdrew its election petition, Barr told Union Organizer Wayne Coomer that the Company was "going to fire three of you, and then the rest of you would tow the line." Barr told him that this "came from high up." (Emphasis supplied.) Barr told Union Organizer Pelly that the employees who had been supporting the Union "were telling." It was during this time, as employee Mings testified, that Barr "got the name of Brat from the Shipping Depart- ment," because employees there believed that he "goes and rats on everybody. It means Barr Runs and Tells." The Company contends that there is "not even a scintilla of evidence" that employee Barr was acting as its "agent." I find, however, that the Company did have knowledge of Barr's antiunion activity, and that the Company ac- quiesced in his engaging in this activity by permitting him to leave his work and engage in it. 2. Mings' union activity Bernard Mings was an air compressor assembler who was hired in April 1973 at $2.39 an hour. In January 1976 when he and other employees received a blanket raise of 20 cents an hour, he was given an additional raise of I I cents an hour (totaling $4.20) and told by his immediate supervisor, Foreman Darcangelo, that "I was doing a good job, my attendance was good, and to keep up the good work." He had never received any oral or written warnings. During the union campaign, Mings attended two or three meetings and became one of the union organizers, soliciting signatures at the plant on union authorization cards and talking in favor of the Union. He asked several antiunion employees, including Barr, to sign union cards and they refused. He succeeded in getting two cards signed, and continued to solicit signatures after the Union withdrew the election petition on February 23. On March 1, he asked Barr again to sign a card. Barr (who had been engaging in the above-described antiunion campaign and spending much worktime talking to Foremen Coomer and Roots) refused and asked Mings, "What are you all going to try to do? Get the petition up again?" Mings said that they were. Even if Barr did not reveal Mings' union organizing to the company supervisors, the evidence is clear that the Company was aware of Mings' support of the Union. Mings revealed this support to Foreman Darcangelo on February 10 or 11, as discussed above, when he argued with the foreman and showed him the Wright Patman letter. The next day, General Foreman Miller indicated his knowledge of Mings' union activities by asking Mings (in Darcangelo's presence) what "those union boys" were trying to do, and where the union meeting was going to be held. Later, after the Union withdrew its petition, Miller announced this withdrawal at a safety meeting, and "every pro-company man clapped their hands." Mings saw Foreman Darcangelo "looking at me" when Mings failed to clap. Finally on March 2, after the assault, General Foreman Miller admitted his knowledge of Mings' union activity by telling him, as discussed below, "See, what trying to organize a union does." I discredit the denials by Miller and Foreman Coomer at the hearing that they knew Mings was working on behalf of the Union. (Darcangelo and Barr did not testify.) 3. Mings' discharge On March 2 (1 day after Union Organizer Mings admitted to antiunion employee Barr that the union supporters were trying to bring up the election petition again), Mings was sitting in the cafeteria, drinking coffee, before going to work at 7 o'clock. Barr entered and said to Mings, "Good morning windy britches." Mings responded, "Good morning, Brat." (As previously indicated, "Brat"- meaning "Barr Runs and Tells"-was the name which shipping department employees were calling Barr.) Barr left the cafeteria and complained to his immediate supervisor, Foreman Coomer, one of the two supervisors with whom Barr frequently talked to during the union campaign while away from his work. (Coomer testified that Barr complained to him before the upcoming assault. Coomer did not indicate what, if anything, he told Barr in response to the complaint.) About 7:15 a.m., shortly after complaining to Foreman Coomer, Barr went to Mings' work area (about 75 feet from where Barr worked), approached Mings who was in a stooped position to pick up some parts, and grabbed Mings' shoulder, stating, "You asshole son-of-a-bitch, why are you telling on me?" Getting up, Mings asked what he was talking about. Barr said, "You asshole son-of-a-bitch, you know what I'm talking about." Mings repeatedly asked him to leave, and Barr responded, "You asshole, you son- of-a-bitch, you put me out." At that point (as credibly testified by Mings, who appeared to be an honest witness, with a good recollection of what happened), "He come toward me with his fists rolled and had me backed up against the wall, and the next thing I knew, I had made contact with him," hitting him with an open hand on the side of the neck "to stop him," and as a reflex (from Mings' karate training in the Army), "I brought my knee up" ("to defend your groin area"), hitting Barr in the stomach. "I didn't want to hurt him. I just wanted to stop him because I was scared. You got to realize that that man is a big man [weighing about 220 pounds]. I'm just a 165 pound guy." (Mings recalled that Barr fell to the floor, but company witness Vincent Rogers, an employee working nearby, positively testified that Barr did not fall down, but fell back against a rack.) Apparently, Barr was not injured. (As indicated, he did not testify.) Getting up, Barr told Mings, "I got you now, union boy." Foreman Darcangelo took Mings to the general fore- man's office, refusing Mings' request that a council member be present. (The council members are selected by the employees to handle grievances with the Company in the nonunion shop.) General Foreman Miller, in the presence of Foremen Darcangelo and Coomer, questioned Barr and Mings about what happened. Near the beginning of the meeting, Miller said to Mings, "See, what trying to organize a union does" (thereby revealing Miller's knowl- edge of Mings' union organizing). Mings said that he, and 457 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD perhaps two others, were the only ones for a union in the bare assembly area, and that a majority of the union supporters were in the shipping department. Miller then stated (as previously found), "I'd fire all those guys back there in shipping if it wasn't for the National Labor Relations Board protecting them." Barr told Miller that the reason he was back in Mings' work area was that he had "something to straighten out" with Mings and that Mings had called him "Brat." Miller asked what that meant, and Mings said that it meant that "Barr Runs and Tells." Miller commented that he liked for people to come and tell him things. Barr also stated that Mings had been in Barr's work area and picking on him, and Mings denied it. Miller asked if Mings had hit Barr first, and Mings answered that it was in "self-defense, it was a reaction. I couldn't help myself," that Barr had "called me a asshole son-of-a-bitch, and I told him to leave several times. He repeated this again and made a step towards me, and asked me to put him out." Mings further explained that when Barr did this, "he had me backed up against a wall. I had nowhere to go." After hearing Mings' side of the story, General Foreman Miller stated, "I don't know what's going to become of this, possibly a day or two off" (Emphasis supplied.) As Miller was telling Mings to go back to his line and go to work, Foreman Tom Darcangelo (in Mings' words) "was sitting to my right and I didn't see him, shaking his head and Mr. Miller said, 'Tom, why are you shaking your head?' " Then both Darcangelo and Foreman Coomer spoke up, saying, "We can't let him get away with this," and that if he did, "others would be trying it." (At this point, I note that both Darcangelo and Coomer had been actively opposing the Union and had unlawfully threatened employees with the loss of benefits if the Union was voted in. When Union Organizer Wayne Coomer had complained to Foreman Coomer about being "jumped on" by antiunion employees, as previously discussed, Foreman Coomer told him that "several people didn't like what [he] was trying to do" and "maybe you ought to change your politics, and speak out against the Union." Foreman Coomer also had been in the cafeteria and had ignored antiunion language written on the blackboard, despite a company rule that every posting or writing on the blackboard must be cleared in advance with the personnel manage. Also, Darcangelo-acting as general foreman at the time-merely commented, "Boy, you got a lot of enemies" and "Don't do anything you'll get put in jail for" when Union Organizer Mitchell Seaborne complained about antiunion notes being hung in his work area or on the hoist he used.) Miller sent Mings back to work, but permitted Barr to remain in his office with Foremen Coomer and Darcangelo. A few minutes later, Miller called in and questioned two of Mings' coworkers, who confirmed that Barr provoked the assault, saying to Mings, "Are you man enough to put me out?" (Although Miller and Coomer failed to give trustworthy accounts of what transpired in Miller's office, Miller admitted in his pretrial affidavit that "Mings said that he had told Barr to leave his work area, but Barr asked if Mings was man enough to put him out." I discredit their denials of Mings' testimony, and find that Mings' account was the most detailed and accurate.) About 10:30 that same morning, March 2, Foreman Darcangelo told Mings to go home and come back the next morning. Between then and the time Mings returned the next morning, the Company had decided to discharge Mings, and to take no action against Barr for provoking the assault. (General Foreman Miller testified on cross- examination that Mings was fired because of the fight. However, on redirect examination, he answered "Yes" to a leading question by company counsel, whether the dis- charge decision was based on the fight and Mings' conduct the next morning. Finally on recross-examination, Miller testified that he felt by the start of the next day that he had no choice but to fire Mings.) Mings returned to work at 7 a.m., on March 3, and got into a dispute with Foreman Darcangelo about whether he was told to return at 10 o'clock. When Darcangelo invited him to go to Miller's office, Mings again asked for a council member to be present. Darcangelo refused, saying, "Hell, no, Barnie. Don't have to give you anything. You're not running the Company." Miller also refused to allow Mings to have a counsel member present, and Mings refused to enter the office without a witness. Miller then asked Mings to leave the plant. Mings asked if he was fired, if his check was ready, and if Barr was having to leave. Upon receiving negative answers, Mings stated, "Well, if Mr. Barr is not leaving, and I haven't had my pay check, and I haven't been fired, I see no reason for me to leave because you'll just say I walked off the job." (Mings believed that his brother-in-law had previously been unjustly accused of walking off the job and discharged.) Miller said he would call the police, and Mings said he would leave peacefully with the police, "because that would prove that I didn't walk off my job." Mings went to the restroom and then waited for the police to arrive. He was charged with disorderly conduct, and he paid the fine after telling the judge that he was not guilty, but would pay the fine just to prove the point that he had not walked off the job. Upon returning to the plant, Mings was given his paycheck, and was told by Foreman Darcangelo, "We cannot condone fighting." 4. Concluding findings Shortly after the assault, General Foreman Miller learned through the investigation in his office that the incident would not have occurred if employee Barr had not left his job and provoked the assault. Mings had a good work record at the Company, and there had been no prior problems of fighting in the plant. There was no company rule requiring discharge for fighting (the written rules providing that employees engaging in "Fighting, wrestling, throwing anything, or 'Horse Play' " may be subject to disciplinary action). Under these circumstances, General Foreman Miller indicated that Mings' assault on Barr possibly would merit a I- or 2-day suspension. It was not until Foreman Darcangelo and Coomer vigorously protested a mere suspension for Mings that the Company decided to discharge him. Both foremen had engaged in an active antiunion campaign, including 458 INGERSOLL-RAND CO. unlawful coercion. Barr had been given a special status during the union campaign, being permitted to spend much company time away from the job while he joined in the antiunion campaign. Mings, on the other hand, was known to be campaigning for the Union. After Darcangelo and Coomer protested a mere suspension for Mings, they demonstrated their favoritism toward Barr by conferring with him privately after Mings was sent back to work, and by failing to punish Barr in any way for provoking the assault. Although the Company now contends that it discharged Mings both because of the March 2 assault and Mings' March 3 conduct (refusing to meet again in General Foreman Miller's office without a council member present, and refusing to leave the plant until arrested, as discussed above), I find that the latter purported reason is merely a belated afterthought. The referee decision shows that at the time of the hearing in Mings' unemployment proceeding, the Company took the position that Mings was discharged on March 3 "for fighting on company property." (The Company's antiunion motivation was not litigated in that proceeding.) Moreover, Miller's testimony and Foreman Darcangelo's treatment of Mings the next morning both indicate that the discharge decision was made on March 2. After weighing all the evidence and circumstances, I find that Mings was not discharged because of his provoked assault upon Barr, but in reprisal for his union organizing. I therefore find that Mings' discharge was discriminatorily motivated to discourage membership in the Union and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. By discharging Bernard Mings on March 3, 1976, because of his activity on behalf of the Union, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(aX3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By threatening employees with the loss of benefits if they vote for a union, by making a threatening statement about discharging employees for supporting a union, and by engaging in coercive interrogation, the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged an employee I find it necessary to order it to offer him full reinstatement, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis plus interest at 6 percent per annum in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from date 2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement. Inasmuch as Respondent's unlawful conduct goes to the heart of the Act, I find that a broad order against infringing on the employees' Section 7 rights in any other manner is necessary. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER2 The Respondent, Ingersoll-Rand Company, Campbells- ville, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 53, AFL-CIO, or any other union. (b) Threatening to withdraw benefits if employees vote for union representation. (c) Threatening to discharge any employee for support- ing a union. (d) Coercively interrogating any employee for union support or union activity. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Bernard Mings immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former job or, if his job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay or other benefits in the manner set forth in the Remedy section. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination or copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, per- sonnel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its plant in Campbellsville, Kentucky, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respon- dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon- dent has taken to comply herewith. 3 In the event this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 459 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for supporting International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 53, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT threaten you with the loss of benefits if you vote for a union. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge any of you for supporting a union. WE WILL NOT coercively question any of you about union support or union activities. WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with your union activities in any other manner. WE WILL offer full reinstatement to Bernard Mings, with backpay plus 6-percent interest. INOERSOLL-RAND COMPANY 460